Supervision families

When you do your PhD, you‘re not completely on your own, you have a supervisor. And then maybe a PhD committee and a second and a third reader and so on. However, during the process of developing your research question, diving into literature and possible approaches, making discoveries, and finding a place for your future academic persona, you primarily interact with your PhD supervisor. He or she should act both as a coach and as a mentor to support you on your academic adventures.

Interestingly, in German speaking academia, your supervisor is still rather called „Doktorvater“ (doctoral father) or „Doktormutter“ (doctoral mother). Which implies a more family-like relationship. And which also is in line with the traditional notion of not studying somewhere at a certain university, but to study with someone, i.e., be the (graduate) student of a specific professor. And thus become a member of a specific „school.“ In the old days, the members of an academic family stood together, supported one another, helped with getting promoted, etc. Which is what you would actually also expect from a mentor. So the role somehow fits.

By the way, how are the PhD students called, I‘m not aware of a label as „Doktorkind“ (doctoral child). You are the „Doktorand“ (male) or „Doktorandin“ (female) (doctoral student) of someone. However, this is derived from the present participle of the verb meaning „to do a PhD.“ Which means, after the defense of the thesis, the label doesn‘t fit any longer. You might be a „former PhD student“ of someone, but this person doesn‘t turn into your „former PhD supervisor“ or your „former Doktormutter.“ He or she keeps the label and thus probably also the role, even after dozens of years.

Surprisingly with this family notion, at least on the side of PhD students expectation grows that these ties will last for longer — you cannot get rid of fatherly or motherly duties — and that mentoring or coaching support also will last for longer. So they tend to get disappointed when mentoring-like support stops, no information on (future) projects or even jobs are passed on, no reference letters are written any longer, and so on. Of course, one could argue that during your PhD you should also find your own way, stand on your own feet, and leave your supervision family to start your own. And of course family relationships aren‘t always positive, there is abusive behavior which is hard to report and will stay within the family. And as long as everything looks great from the outside, nobody will believe that the inside isn‘t as bright as current incidents at the ETH show.

Another aspect seems to be gender, actually. And maybe more on the side of the supervisor. Female supervisors (so the „Doktormütter“) seem to be more protective and more supportive, at least they report such actions on social media and they even use selfdescriptions as „mama bear advisor“ and the like. And from what I see (which is obviously a very small snapshot), more female supervisors state how proud they are when their current or former PhD students report success stories (an award, a talk at a prestigious venue, a good job, another grant, etc.). Male supervisors also show success of their PhD students, but with much less emotion, they rather mention this as a success story of their lab/institute/project. Which fits stereotypes of motherly and fatherly support within families, so the German terms actually are apropriate, don‘t you think?

Professor for one year (week 31): Supervising students

Currently, I supervise three students as "first supervisor;" last term, I was the "second supervisor" for three students.  Two students write their BA thesis and one student writes her MA thesis.  I won't report on their topics, but on the supervision as such.  As second supervisor, I only have to read and grade the thesis, as first supervisor, I'm responsible for a good topic and I'm the person students contact for help.

Actually, I don't differentiate whether I supervise BA or MA theses or term papers -- there are only gradual differences with respect to the amount of time to invest, the number of words or pages to produce, and the kind of topic.  At all levels, I expect students to come up with a proposal first; they should define themselves which topic they work on for the next few weeks (or months in case of MA theses).  We discuss the proposal and then they have to write a one-page abstract defining their research question, what kind of material to use or to produce, and they also should list first literature references.  I don't expect them to read 24/7, but they should investigate relevant literature for their topic.  Then we discuss this abstract and refine the research question.  I also point them to unmentioned papers or journals and book series they should consider consulting.  And then I send them off to work.

Usually, there is a fixed date for handing in the thesis or the seminar paper.  When half of the time is over, I invite the students for another meeting.  A few days before, they send me everything they have produced so far.  At this point in the process, it's time to have a look at the structure of the text, even if some sections are still to be written.  The list of references they want to cite should be nearly complete.  This appointment forces them to actually write something and not spend time procrastinating.  There is a strong correlation: Students with little and/or poor text half way through their paper, usually hand in poor final versions.  They underestimate the time needed for revising, editing, and printing (university regulations often require printed theses).

Sometimes, students see those two appointments (preparing a proposal and discussing it, and sending mid-way material and discussing it) as some kind of cruelty.  However, it helps them a lot in focusing on their topic, developing critical thinking, and producing high-quality texts.  After grading their work, students can also make an appointment to get detailed feedback.  

When I teach seminars where several students write a paper, I often make some of these appointments a group activity:  students report on their research question in the first session, we discuss how to define a good hypothesis and how and where to find relevant literature.  In the half-time session, students report on their progress and the group comments on whether to refine (expand or narrow) the research question or their ambitions.  That's also a perfect opportunity to realize that all the others also struggle a bit, didn't manage to write as much text as they expected, etc.

Interestingly, the Department of Linguistics at the University of Konstanz recently developed a checklist for BA students:  they should reflect on the competencies required to write a thesis (including writing competencies) and they should prepare a one-page abstract before looking for a supervisor.  The checklist is intended to help students define a topic and become aware of all the skills involved when writing a thesis, and the filled-out list should inform potential supervisors about the students.  As for me, I don't need this list, its elements are part of my supervision style anyway.  However, preparing such a checklist is a sign for aiming at a somewhat more homogeneous supervision for all students, but you could also see it as an indication that not all potential supervisors have a real interest in mentoring students.

What's your supervision style?